Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` Alex Spiro (appearing pro hac vice)
` alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com
` Kyle Batter (Bar No. 301803)
` kylebatter@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`
` Michael T. Lifrak (Bar No. 210846)
` michaellifrak@quinnemanuel.com
` Jeanine Zalduendo (Bar No. 243374)
` jeaninezalduendo@quinnemanuel.com
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk,
`Brad W. Buss, Robyn Denholm, Ira Ehrenpreis,
`Antonio J. Gracias, James Murdoch, Kimbal Musk,
`And Linda Johnson Rice
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Date: March 10, 2022
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Location: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Edward Chen
`
`REDACTED FOR PUBLIC FILING
`
`IN RE TESLA, INC. SECURITIES
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`F. 
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................1 
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................................................2 
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ...........................................................................................3 
`A. 
`The Public Investment Fund Has Long Desired to Take Tesla Private. ....................3 
`B. 
`The PIF Agreed to Fund a Transaction to Take Tesla Private. ..................................5 
`C. 
`Mr. Musk Discussed Going Private at $420 with Tesla’s Board. ..............................6 
`D. 
`Mr. Musk Discussed Going Private With His Financial and Legal Advisors. ...........7 
`E. 
`Mr. Musk Disclosed the Potential Go-Private Transaction Publicly on
`August 7. ....................................................................................................................7 
`Mr. Musk Spoke with Investors and Advisors. ..........................................................9 
`Mr. Musk Confirmed His Understanding that Funding Was Secured in
`Numerous Communications with Mr. Al-Rumayyan. .............................................11 
`Mr. Musk Updated Shareholders With Additional Information on August
`13. .............................................................................................................................12 
`Given Shareholder Feedback, Mr. Musk Decided Tesla Should Remain
`Public. .......................................................................................................................13 
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................13 
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................14 
`I. 
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DENIED AS TO FALSITY. .............................14 
`Plaintiff Ignores Material Facts Showing it was Reasonable for Mr. Musk to
`A. 
`State “Funding [Was] Secured” and “Investor Support [Was] Confirmed.” ...........14 
`Plaintiff Ignores Material Facts Showing That Mr. Musk’s Statement
`Regarding a “Shareholder Vote” Was Not Misleading. ...........................................17 
`Plaintiff’s New Argument that Discussions with the PIF Had Ended as of
`August 13, 2018 is Baseless. ....................................................................................18 
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DENIED AS TO SCIENTER. ..........................20 
`A. 
`Scienter is a Question for the Jury. ..........................................................................20 
`B. 
`There Is Ample Evidence that Mr. Musk Believed His Statements Were
`True. .........................................................................................................................20 
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DENIED AS TO RELIANCE. .........................21 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`There is a Genuine Dispute of Fact Regarding Materiality. ....................................22 
`There is a Genuine Dispute of Fact Regarding Defendants’ Ability to Rebut
`Any Fraud-On-The-Market Presumption. ................................................................24 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................26 
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`In re Allied Cap. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`2003 WL 1964184 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2003) ............................................................................. 23
`In re Allstate Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`966 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 24, 25
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 13
`Antonetti v. Skolnik,
`2014 WL 1308626 (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2014) ............................................................................... 15
`In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig.,
`886 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1989) ..................................................................................................... 20
`Basic Inc. v. Levinson,
`485 U.S. 224 (1988) ........................................................................................................ 19, 24, 25
`Brody v. Transitional Hosps. Corp.,
`280 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................................... 19
`Buxbaum v. Deutsche Bank AG,
`196 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ................................................................................... 16, 21
`City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`856 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................................... 24
`Davis v. Yelp, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4923359 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2021) ............................................................ 2, 18, 20, 21
`Durning v. First Bos. Corp.,
`815 F.2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................. 2, 22
`Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder,
`425 U.S. 185 (1976) .................................................................................................................... 20
`Fecht v. Price Co.,
`70 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................................... 14
`U.S. v. Ferguson,
`676 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................ 17
`Garcia v. J2 Glob., Inc.,
`2021 WL 1558331 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) .............................................................................. 15
`Gebhart v. S.E.C.,
`595 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 21
`Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.,
`573 U.S. 258 (2014) ........................................................................................................ 21, 22, 24
`Howard v. Everex Sys., Inc.,
`228 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 2, 20
`Hsingching Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc.,
`2018 WL 4945703 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2018) ............................................................................... 24
`In re Infineon Techs. AG Sec. Litig.,
`266 F.R.D. 386 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders,
`564 U.S. 135 (2011) .................................................................................................................... 25
`In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`2007 WL 2429593 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2007) ............................................................................ 14
`Jelinek v. Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co.,
`747 F. App’x 513 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 2, 13
`Kaplan v. Rose,
`49 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................... 24
`Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,
`416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................................... 16
`Marucci v. Overland Data, Inc.,
`1999 WL 1027053 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 1999) .............................................................................. 15
`Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano,
`563 U.S. 27 (2011) ...................................................................................................................... 19
`McCrary v. Elations Co. LLC,
`2014 WL 12561600 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) ...................................................................... 22, 24
`McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc.,
`2019 WL 8137143 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2019) .............................................................................. 21
`No. 84 Emp.-Teamster Joint Council Pension Tr. Fund v. Am. W. Holding Corp.,
`320 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 17, 23
`Oran v. Stafford,
`226 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................................ 23
`Reese v. BP Expl. Inc.,
`643 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 14
`In re REMEC Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`702 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................................... 16
`S.E.C. v. Bankatlantic Bancorp, Inc.,
`661 F. App’x 629 (11th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 15
`S.E.C. v. Jasper,
`2009 WL 10701938 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2009) ................................................................ 2, 20, 21
`S.E.C. v. Phan,
`500 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................... 15, 18, 21
`S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp.,
`617 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 14, 16
`S.E.C. v. Sourlis,
`851 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................................ 16
`S.E.C. v. Todd,
`642 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 14
`In re Skechers USA, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`444 F. Supp. 3d 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ......................................................................................... 18
`In re Sun Microsystems Sec. Litigation,
`1992 WL 226898 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 1992) ............................................................................... 15
`In re Tesla, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`477 F. Supp. 3d 903 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ........................................................................................ 17
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc.,
`426 U.S. 438 (1976) .................................................................................................................... 18
`In re Twitter, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2020 WL 4187915 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) .................................................................. 2, 20, 21
`In re Volkswagen,
`2017 WL 6041723 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017) .............................................................. 2, 15, 20, 21
`Vucinich v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc.,
`739 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1984) ............................................................................................... 20, 21
`Washtenaw Cty. Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Walgreen Co.,
`2021 WL 5083756 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2021) .......................................................................... 16, 21
`Rules and Regulations
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................ 13
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Plaintiff has litigated this case for nearly three years, taken numerous depositions, received
`hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, and now must contend with one basic truth: Elon
`Musk’s August 7, 2018 tweet informing the public that he was considering taking Tesla private was
`entirely truthful and cannot support the claims that Plaintiff brings—much less a motion for summary
`judgment. Mr. Musk was considering taking Tesla private at $420 a share. Funding was secured.
`There was investor support. These conclusions are supported by extensive contemporaneous
`evidence, including discussions with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund (the “PIF”) and Tesla’s
`Board, as well as the undisputed fact that there was sufficient funding for a go-private transaction,
`from the PIF or otherwise. Plaintiff ignores all of this, ignores what Mr. Musk actually said (and
`when), ignores what Mr. Musk truly believed, and instead creates strawman arguments that overlook
`large swaths of evidence adduced during discovery. Far from “fraud,” Mr. Musk’s statements were an
`effort to be open about a potential go-private transaction and to provide equal information to all Tesla
`shareholders. Plaintiff has no valid claims, never mind ones that can be decided in his favor on
`summary judgment. Plaintiff’s transparent attempt to avoid a trial on the merits should be rejected,
`and the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety.
`To obtain summary judgment, a plaintiff must show that there are no disputes as to any
`material facts. A plaintiff cannot cherry pick certain facts and sweep the remaining inconvenient and
`unhelpful facts under the rug. But that is precisely what Plaintiff does here, disregarding material
`facts demonstrating, among other things, that:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`
`These material facts go to the key elements of Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff does not say a
`word about them. “A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the case.” Jelinek v. Am. Nat’l
`Prop. & Cas. Co., 747 F. App’x 513, 514 (9th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). The material facts
`detailed herein relate directly to the alleged falsity of Mr. Musk’s statements and thus must be
`evaluated by the jury. Moreover, the facts demonstrate that Mr. Musk believed his statements were
`true. Countless courts—including this Court—have held that “[g]enerally, scienter should not be
`resolved by summary judgment” and have denied summary judgment on that basis. Davis v. Yelp,
`Inc., 2021 WL 4923359, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2021) (Chen, J.).1 This is because “materiality
`and scienter are both fact-specific issues which should ordinarily be left to the trier of fact.” Id.
`Plaintiff’s motion on the element of reliance fares no better. Plaintiff cannot obtain summary
`judgment on reliance without first establishing that Mr. Musk’s alleged misstatements were material.
`But materiality is a question for the jury (see, e.g., Durning v. First Bos. Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1268
`(9th Cir. 1987)), and it is easy to see why. It is not enough to point out that Tesla’s stock price moved
`after Mr. Musk’s statements, as Plaintiff does here. That movement could have been caused by Mr.
`Musk’s other indisputably true statements (e.g., that he was considering taking Tesla private or that
`the PIF had heavily invested in Tesla). Indeed, when Mr. Musk disclosed further details concerning
`the discussions about funding after his initial tweets, Tesla’s stock price hardly moved, suggesting that
`the alleged misstatements were not material. Plaintiff has not even attempted to meet his burden on
`this necessary element. This too is a question for the jury, not summary adjudication.
`Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety.
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`(1) Numerous courts, including this one, have recognized that scienter is a question for the
`jury. Plaintiff in this case ignores the abundance of documentary and contemporaneous evidence
`demonstrating that Mr. Musk was considering taking Tesla private, that a premium of 20% over the
`
`1 Howard v. Everex Sys., Inc., 228 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2000); In re Volkswagen, 2017 WL
`6041723, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017); S.E.C. v. Jasper, 2009 WL 10701938, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
`10, 2009); In re Twitter, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2020 WL 4187915, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 9 of 32
`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 9 of 32
`
`&WwNO=
`oOOoNNDW
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`share price was reasonable, that funding was secured at the time of the tweet, and that there was
`
`investor support for the transaction. Should the Court deny partial summary judgmenton falsity and
`
`scienter where the evidence creates numeroustriable issues of fact?
`
`(2) The rebuttable fraud-on-the-market presumption requires Plaintiffto prove that the alleged
`
`misrepresentations were material. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Musk’s statement“funding secured” was
`
`material because Tesla’s stock price changed following the statement, but ignores that Mr. Musk made
`
`otherindisputably true statements that could account for stock price changes(e.g., “am considering
`
`taking Tesla private”). Days later, Mr. Muskclarified what “funding secured” meant and Tesla’s
`
`stock price hardly moved. Should the Court deny partial summary judgment on the element of
`
`reliance where Plaintiff has not attempted to prove the materiality of the challenged statements?
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A.
`
`The Public Investment Fund Has Long Desired to Take Tesla Private.
`
`ThePIF is Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund. (Batter Decl., Ex. A.)? The PIF’s purpose
`
`14
`
`is to provide financing support for strategic projects on behalf of the Saudi government. (/d.) As of
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`August 2018, it was reported to have $225billion in assets. (/d.) As part of the Saudi government’s
`efforts to “transform Saudi Arabia from a staidpetrostate to a technology-focused economy” (id).
`
`2 Deposition exhibits are marked with numbers (e.g., 1-400); new exhibits in support ofthis
`opposition are marked with letters (e.g., A-Z). All cited exhibits are to the Batter Declaration.
`3 Likewise, Mr. Musk believed—and expressed publicly—that Tesla would operate more
`efficiently as a private company, benefiting its employees and shareholders. (Ex. D.)
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`-3-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`The PIF Agreed to Fund a Transaction to Take Tesla Private.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 12 of 32
`
`oo~nNnN—_WwNe
`
`\o
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Sunilarly, the PIF is well knownfororally committing to transactions and moving quickly in
`
`making large investments. For example, the PIF orally agreed to commit $45 billion to SoftBank’s
`
`technology fund after a 45-minute conversation and similarly bought a $3.5 billion stake in Uber
`
`within weeks of meeting its CEO.
`
`(Ex. A at 5-6.)
`
`C.
`
`Mr. Musk Discussed Going Private at $420 with Tesla’s Board.
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`-6-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`
`D. Mr. Musk Discussed Going Private With His Financial and Legal Advisors.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Mr. Musk Disclosed the Potential Go-Private Transaction Publicly on August 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`oo~nNnN—_WwNe
`
`\o
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 14 of 32
`
`On August7 at 9:18 a.m., the Financial Timesreported that the PIF had acquired a $2 billion
`
`stake in Tesla. (Ex. 225.) Tesla’s stock immediately beganto rise sharply.
`
`At 9:48 a.m., 30 minutesafter the Financial Times report, Mr. Musk tweeted: “Amconsidering
`
`taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” (Ex. 8.) Over the next few hours, in response to
`
`questions fromhis Twitter followers, Mr. Musk provided additional information, including his “hope
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`-8-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 15 of 32
`
`
`
`[that] *all* current investors remain with Tesla even if we’re private,” and that the rationale for the
`take-private transaction was that it would be “way smoother & less disruptive as a private company.”
`(Exs. 10, 11.) Some investors interpreted “funding secured” consistently with what had occurred, as
`“a strong verbal commitment, with funds available and parties willing to execute quickly.” (Ex. 33.)
`Later that day, Mr. Musk emailed Tesla’s employees, a copy of which was then posted on
`Tesla’s blog, entitled “Taking Tesla Private.” (Ex. 12.) Mr. Musk reiterated, “I’m considering taking
`Tesla private at a price of $420/share,” and went on to explain his rationale. (Id.) He added that, “a
`final decision has not yet been made,” and the proposal “would ultimately be finalized through a vote
`of our shareholders.” (Id.) Mr. Musk linked to this blog post on his Twitter account, including a short
`cover note: “Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent
`on shareholder vote.” (Ex. 13.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The next morning, before the market opened,
`Tesla’s Board announced that Mr. Musk had opened a discussion about taking Tesla private, and that
`the Board was “taking the appropriate next steps to evaluate this.” (Ex. 26.)
`F. Mr. Musk Spoke with Investors and Advisors.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`NONONONoNONONONONO——————————oo~—nNNn=WwN—_OoNe}oo~—nNNn=WwN—_oONe}oo~—nNNn=WwN—
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 16 of 32
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`-10-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 17 of 32
`
`—_
`G.
`Mr. Musk Confirmed His Understanding
`that Funding Was Secured in
`
`N
`
`Numerous Communications with Mr. Al-Rumayyan.
`
`oo|OnnN>Ww
` \o
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`N nN
`
`
`ee
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`-11-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 18 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`H. Mr. Musk Updated Shareholders With Additional Information on August 13.
`Before the markets opened on August 13, Mr. Musk posted an “Update on Taking Tesla
`Private” on Tesla’s blog. (Ex. 16.) The post included additional details regarding, among other
`things, Mr. Musk’s funding discussions with the PIF, the potential structure of the transaction, and the
`various actions that would need to be completed before the transaction could move forward. (Id.) Mr.
`Musk explained why he said “funding secured” in his August 7 tweet. (Id.) Mr. Musk noted that he
`had “engaged advisors to investigate a range of potential structures and options” to get to a “more
`precise understanding” on how many shareholders might remain if Tesla became private. (Id.) The
`market did not view this information as revelatory—Tesla’s stock price barely moved at all, and in
`fact rose slightly in response to it, increasing from $355.49 to $356.41. (Ex. I.)
`
`
`
`
`
` Later that night, after the
`close of trading, Mr. Musk posted that statement on his Twitter account. (Ex. K.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 19 of 32
`
`
`
`I.
`Given Shareholder Feedback, Mr. Musk Decided Tesla Should Remain Public.
`After the market closed on August 16, the New York Times published an article based on an
`interview with Mr. Musk. (Ex. 19.) The article made a number of unfounded assertions without
`providing any supporting evidence, including a statement by the reporter that funding for a take-
`private “was far from secure.” (Id.) The next day, Tesla’s stock price declined 9%. (Ex. I.). In
`contrast to the New York Times reporter’s claim, not only did Mr. Musk firmly believe funding was
`secured when he tweeted, in reality (per Mr. Musk’s discussions with the PIF) it was secured.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Musk explained his decision to shareholders in a blog post the next day. (Ex. 229.)
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Summary judgment must be denied unless the moving party can demonstrate that (1) “there is
`no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and (2) “the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (emphasis added). “A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the
`case.” Jelinek, 747 F. App’x at 514 (emphasis added). When considering a motion for summary
`judgment, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be
`drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Summary judgement
`is not appropriate where “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at
`248. Courts may deny summary judgment “where there is reason to believe that the better course
`would be to proceed to a full trial.” Id. at 255. This is especially so given that “[c]redibility
`determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts
`are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Id.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 20 of 32
`
`
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DENIED AS TO FALSITY.
`Despite ample support in the record showing Mr. Musk’s August 7 tweet being true, Plaintiff
`nonetheless persists in claiming that the following statements were false: (1) “Am considering taking
`Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” (2) “Investor support is confirmed.” (3) “Only reason why
`this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.” (4) “I have continued to communicate
`with the Managing Director of the Saudi fund. . . .” (Mot. at 17-23.)
`In securities cases, a statement is not false unless it “affirmatively creates an impression of a
`state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that actually exists.” Reese v. BP Expl. Inc.,
`643 F.3d 681, 687 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and alteration omitted). Summary judgment on the
`element of falsity must be denied if any reasonable jury could conclude that the statement at issue is
`truthful. S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). This is
`because whether a statement is false “is a mixed question to be decided by the trier of fact.” Fecht v.
`Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 1995); S.E.C. v. Todd, 642 F.3d 1207, 1220 (9th Cir. 2011).
`Summary judgment is thus improper where “there are triable questions of fact related to whether
`statements . . . were misleading.” In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL 2429593, at *20
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2007) (denying summary judgment).
`Plaintiff has failed to show that there are no disputed facts concerning the truth of Mr. Musk’s
`statements concerning a go-private transaction, and has failed to show that no reasonable jury could
`find in Mr. Musk’s favor. Indeed, as the evidence ignored by Plaintiff shows, Mr. Musk’s statements
`concerning a go-private transaction were truthful. Plaintiff’s motion therefore must be denied.
`A.
`Plaintiff Ignores Material Facts Showing it was Reasonable for Mr. Musk to State
`“Funding [Was] Secured” and “Investor Support [Was] Confirmed.”
`Plaintiff argues that Mr. Musk’s statements about funding being secured were false because
`they were based on “one 30-minute conversation [with the PIF] about potentially taking Tesla
`private.” (Mot. at 3.) That is incomplete and false.
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 21 of 32
`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 365 Filed 02/01/22 Page 21 of 32
`
`&WwNO=
`oOOoNNDW
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Plaintiff is “not permitted to cherry pick allegations that entitle them to summary judgment”
`
`while ignoring other material facts. Antonetti v. Skolnik, 2014 WL